Go to http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1184950.aspx and click on the links to the Hebrew and English texts of the new stone causing the stir about possibly referring to the concept of a resurrected Messiah before the time of Jesus. Look at lines 78-85, which must be what Israel Knohl is referring to. Notice what's actually in the text vs. what he has to supply. The text itself, reads merely :
"You(?) will save them, . . . [. . .]. . .from before You, the three si[gn]s(?), three . . . [. . . . ] In three days. . ., I, Gabri'el . . . [?}, the Prince of Princes, . . ., harrow holes (?) . . .[. . . ]. . .to/for . . .[. . .]. . .and the. . .to me(?), out of three-the small one, whom(?) I took, I, Gabri'el. YHWH of Hosts, the Lord of(?)[Israel. . .]. . .[. . . .] Then you will stand. . .[. . .]. . ."
The article with these links explains that Knohl "reconstructed one phrase to read, 'In three days, you shall live' - which would be an eerie parallel to the Christian account of Jesus' resurrection on the third day of his entombment," and that "he deduced that the phrase was addressed by Gabriel to a "prince of princes" who was slain by an evil king.
Does anybody else see all that in the actual text? That's much more than "reconstruction" and "deduction;" that's plain just making things up and adding them in. Or am I missing something?
Prof. Blomberg -
I want to thank you for sharing your analysis of the text. I'm glad you've taken the time to demystify this stone for the rest of us. Reconstruction and Sensationalism are the correct words. Jesus still sells of course...
Edgar
The Inferred Readings:
All we have access to are the English and Hebrew translations, neither of which include the illegible disputed sections. I wish they would make high quality images available online so that others could attempt the reconstruction of the text.
The same thing happened after the Talpiot fiasco. Tabor and others didn't release high quality images to the public until Dr. Pfann really started challenging their readings. I wouldn't expect less from Knohl. After all, he does have a vested interested in this tablet supporting his theories about resurrection in Second Temple Judaism.
Ranger:
In my post for July 8, I explain the sigla that allow us to see what is clear or not inthe text's wording. High Resolution pictures are still better. But if what we have is at all close to corrct, then there are too many gaps to do much with this text.
dlb
I expect about a decade of textual and historical reconstructing before either side reaches any real conclusions. Then again how long have we had the Dead Sea Scrolls...
This a good analysis of the stone by a renowned Biblical scholar
Thanks Professor Blomberg!
George Farahat
Toronto
I second that one!
hey craig. interesting stuff reg this new 'scroll'..... i just read thru the hebrew and english translations and couldn't agree more with being mystified reg their conclusion. not sure how they got a messianic resurrection from the dead from that text. however, what is interesting about this text is the the strong 'three' theme throughout - it is mentioned 12 times. there are three 'saints', three 'shepherds',three 'prophets', three 'signs' and three 'days'. do you know of any other 'three' theme in the scrolls/ot pseudo? any ideas as to what a 'three' theme might mean?
Great question, Dave. There are of course plenty of OT uses of three that seem merely to give a certain emphasis to things, where one occurrence of a term wouldn't have the same effect. The Trisagion (thrice holy) may be the most famous. Commentators often muse that the phemenon may also be related to the Deuteronomy 19 stipulation that a matter is confirmed by two or three witnesses. And, whether or not there is a Messiah figure in this text, if someone does stand after three days, whatever that might mean, it could easily be an echo of Hosea 6:2. Davies and Allison think large parts of Matthew are made up of triads and it is the most Jewish of the four Gospels. But if you're looking for me to speculate as to anything specifically Trinitarian, I won't, because that would go well beyond anything that could be demonstrated. :)
I agree with Prof. Blomberg but not entirely.
You can extrapolate for example in Genesis that God is talking in the plural rather than the singular in the story of creation. Some of the Fathers thought that the 3 angels that came to Abraham were the Trinity. I think we can probably say that reference to the Trinity in the OT is implied rather than explicit.
But how this relates to the claim of the recently discovered stone and the Messiah, I do not know.
George
Please be sure that your own preconceptions do not keep you from an alternate view of this stone. Already, bias has been shown in immediate claims that the stone proves a common pre-Christian Jewish belief in a Messiah who would die and be raised from the dead, and that Jesus and his followers were simply trying to fulfill the predictions. Why not, rather, allow that this stone might contain an actual G-d-given PROPHECY that is just as authentic as what we read in the Tanakh? Yes, I'm sure that this view offends the slanted bias of many scholars in the crowd, who view any religious convictions as somehow devoid of sanity.
Personally, I believe that G-d will reveal many more such ancient artifacts in days to come, to the extent that true seekers of truth, whose interest has been piqued, will honestly do their research in order to discover truth, rather than to disprove what they do not wish to accept.
Post new comment